Sunday, 29 March 2015

Was Provisional government of Kashmir Legal? Dr Shabir Choudhry
29 March 2015
The man was angry and strongly criticised me for not supporting the Provisional Government of Jammu and Kashmir. He was my old colleague from the JKLF; and met after many years. He said Maharajah Hari Singh was deposed on 4th October 1947; and after that he had no right to rule or take any decision about the future of Jammu and Kashmir.

I requested him to cool down and then we can discuss this matter. He said there is nothing to be discussed. We have been observing 4th October for many years. So were we wrong? You also observed it; however, you have changed over the years. I want to know why you have changed and why you are undermining this historic day and achievement.

After cooling him down I told him that I have not changed; however, my knowledge on the Kashmir dispute and on the subject of Provisional Government has changed. With increased knowledge and experience, I am able to differentiate between fact and fiction; and I can tell what is propaganda of those who occupy us, and how they fool us in name of Islam and brotherhood. As a loyal son of soil it is my duty to pass on my knowledge and educate people about hidden and bitter facts of the Kashmir dispute that they can make informed decisions.

As I paused, he sarcastically said, so all others who observed 4th October were wrong and only you are correct.

I requested my guest to let me put forward my view point and then we can discuss it further. I said people make decisions in light of their knowledge and experience; and those who made the decision about observation of 4th October were correct under the given situation; but now that we have more knowledge on the subject is it not appropriate that we make decision in light of new knowledge.

I asked him can you tell me who President of Syria is. He looked perplexed, as he was trying to understand logic of my question. When I repeated my question he said, Bashar Assad. I asked him who is President of Afghanistan. He got bit irritated, and said Abdul Ghani, but what has this got to do with Provisional Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

So in your view Syrian President is Bashar Assad, even though he has no control over most of the Syrian territory; even he does not control all of his capital, Damascus. Same is the case with Afghanistan; and you regard Abdul Ghani as President of Afghanistan.

Then question arises how could Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir lost his right to rule just on strength of one statement that was issued by a middle ranking political activist of Muslim Conference, second largest party of the State; and that was published in a newspaper of a country which is responsible for our miseries and which also occupies us?

Ghulam Nabi Gilkar before he issued this statement did not consult the leader of the Biggest Kashmiri political party, Sheikh Abdullah. He did not even consult senior leaders of his own party; and some of senior leaders were also present in Rawalpindi when he issued the statement.

People with common sense ask what is the legal value of this statement which was not approved by leaders of his own party; and the leaders of the biggest party in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In any case, what authority did Ghulam Nabi Gilkar have to depose the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir? Who entrusted this authority to this individual who was not much known before this statement?

Furthermore, he belonged to Qadiani sect of Muslims; and had closer relationship with the Qadiani leaders. Before he announced this so called Provisional Kashmiri Government, he had a meeting in Lahore with very senior Qadiani leaders; and it should also be remembered that Foreign Minister of Pakistan was also a Qadiani.

My guest tried to interrupt me but I requested him to be patient for a few more minutes. I said in Pakistan there is a civil war going on in Balochistan, as some tribal leaders don’t want to be part of Pakistan. Also there is a civil war going on in various parts of FATA. What if some middle ranking person go to a neighbouring country and declares that he has deposed government of Nawaz Sharif; and from now onwards no one should obey orders of this deposed government.

Tell me honestly will anyone take any notice of such a statement; and stop obeying orders of Nawaz Sharif government and his army? I want to ask why when it comes to Jammu and Kashmir we only rely on one statement and believe that after that the Maharajah lost his right to rule and don’t consider that the statement had no legal and constitutional standing; and had no military support or widespread political backing.
My guest clearly looked bewildered; but still asserted that we had Azad Kashmir Army before the 4th October was announced; and this army was behind this statement and they were fighting the Maharajah government.

I said there was no such thing as Azad Kashmir Army on or before 4th October 1947. Yes, there were some disturbances in some parts of Poonch, mainly because of heavy taxes and oppression; but no area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was in hands of the people protesting against the Maharajah.

You are an educated person and have been part of the Struggle for many decades; tell me name of Commander in Chief of your army or name of any other General? He looked disorientated; and unsure as to what to say.

I said, yes there could be army behind this statement, and it could be the army of Pakistan; and not that of so called Azad Kashmir. He was clueless. He said if what you have told me is correct, then it means we were under the propaganda of Pakistan and we were misled. However, question arises why our leaders, including you observed 4th October and demanded the restoration of the Azad Kashmir army.

I said, in my opinion, all those who observed 4th October, did so sincerely believing that it was true and that this demand was helping the cause of united and independent Jammu and Kashmir. Now that we have new knowledge on the subject we need to formulate policies in light of this; and must not do anything that the world community regard our activities as our attempt to propagate interests of Pakistan, who in reality is also an occupier of Jammu and Kashmir.

We concluded our discussion on this positive note that we people of Jammu and Kashmir must be loyal to our motherland, Jammu and Kashmir that existed on 15 August 1948; and that in order to be a loyal Kashmiri we don’t have to express our loyalty to either India or Pakistan. We must promote a Kashmiri interest and let India and Pakistan defend their interests.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

Friday, 27 March 2015

Why Pakistan may be a reluctant ally in Saudis’ Yemen
campaign

Saudi Arabia’s new policy of uniting Sunni Muslim powers against Iran’s
Shia regime has resulted in an impressively broad coalition joining its
military campaign against Yemen’s pro-Tehran Houthi rebels.

Along with five Gulf
countries, and the poorer monarchies of Jordan and Morocco, it also enlisted
the support of itsEgyptian strongman ally,
general-turned-president Abdel Fattah El Sisi. Even plucky Sudan has dispatched
three fighter jets.

Differences over
issues such as the Muslim Brotherhood were suppressed in the interests of
building a broad anti-Iran coalition that extended beyond the Arab world.
Turkey announced on Thursday that it supports the Saudi-led offensive, with
President Recep Tayyep Erdogan issuing a spirited harangue that
branded Iran’s actions a source of “annoyance.”

A senior member of
Sharif’s cabinet told Al Jazeera that Pakistan will not be involved in any
action “in Yemen” itself but will provide support to the Saudis on their own
soil “if they are threatened.” On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported Pakistani
and Saudi forces were carrying out a joint exercise near the Yemeni border, and
quoted a U.S. official as saying the move was designed to serve as a warning to
the Houthi rebels.

Unlike the Turks, who
are incensed by Tehran’s involvement in propping up the regime of Syria’s
President Bashar al-Assad, Pakistan has no active dispute with Iran. The Saudis
and Turks have made common cause in Syria and now Yemen despite backing rival
factions in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.

Pakistan, by
contrast, has remained distant from the Syrian conflict, facing a compelling
threat at home. Since the December massacre of Peshawar schoolchildren, it has
renewed its resolve to eliminate the Pakistani Taliban — a notoriously
sectarian organization that has terrorized Pakistan’s Shia
population, the largest outside Iran. Around one in five Pakistanis
is Shia, as was the country’s founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Still, it now finds
itself drawn into a geopolitical alliance with a strongly sectarian pallor.

For the Saudis, the
appeal of Pakistan is obvious. It shares a border with Iran and, crucially,
already has nuclear weapons. The Saudis want Pakistan to act as a counterweight
to Iran, and have long cultivated a close relationship with its military. Since
the late 1960s, Pakistani soldiers have been permanently garrisoned in Saudi
Arabia. In 1969, Pakistani pilots slipped into Saudi jets to carry out sorties
in South Yemen against a rebel threat at the time.

For Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia is not only a long-standing source of aid but a principal source of
foreign exchange through much-needed remittances.
Just last month, for example, $453 million flowed into Pakistan from the
exertions of more than 1.5 million often poorly treated migrant workers. The
intimacy of the two countries’ ruling elites notwithstanding, the migrant
workers are weighed down by debts they owe to exploitative recruiters.
Pakistanis are also disproportionately found in Saudi Arabia’s jails and on
death row.

The relationship,
however, is one-sided. “We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we
are participants,” Saudi Arabia’s current ambassador in Washington, Adel
al-Jubeir, boasted in 2007, according to a leaked State Department cable. Its clout
extends to the realm of politics, where the Saudis have keenly backed military
rulers and right-wing politicians — Prime Minister Sharif lived in exile in
Jeddah after the Kingdom persuaded then dictator Pervez Musharraf to release
him from prison.

Sharif’s Pakistan
Muslim League-Nawaz party is seen within Pakistan to favor Sunnis, and as
having ties with sectarian groups. It has few Shia parliamentarians and few
Shia voters.

Pakistan’s army,
however, has never had a sectarian reputation. It has included many Shia
generals, although their numbers have thinned over the years. Some of the worst
victims of the Pakistani Taliban’s savagery were Shia soldiers, who were
murdered in captivity. Becoming an overtly Sunni army would compromise the
Pakistan military’s proud claim of being a force of cohesion for the country,
and risk alienating many Shia Pakistanis, at a time when there is a clamor for
unity against the Taliban at home.

This may also be a
bad time for Pakistan to pick a fight with Iran. In recent years, relations
between the neighbors have veered between periods of economic cooperation and
cross-border tensions, particularly over Sunni armed groups targeting the
Iranian regime from Pakistani territory in Balochistan.

But as it battles the
Pakistani Taliban along the Afghan border, Islamabad is trying to facilitate a
postwar settlement across the border by bringing to bear its considerable influence over the
Afghan Taliban. Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, has developed
closer relations with the Pakistani leadership than his predecessor, Hamid
Karzai, had ever managed to achieve. But any eventual settlement in Afghanistan
will inevitably involve Iran, whose influence in the country was such that even
the U.S. sought Tehran’s cooperation during and after its 2001 invasion to
topple the Taliban.

Being drawn into the
Middle East’s sectarian battles, then, carries greater domestic and regional
risk for Pakistan than it does for most of the Saudis’ other partners.

Thursday, 26 March 2015

The recent twin terror attacks at Kathua and
Samba have evoked a strong public outrage against Pakistan-both its Army and
civilian establishment. The legislative assembly of the state currently in
session has also passed a unanimous resolution condemning the unfriendly
neighbouring country. Unhappy with the formation of an alliance government in
partnership with the Bharatiya Janata Party, Pakistan is hell bent upon
fomenting trouble in the state. Apart from spreading terror, the aim of these
twin attacks appears to be to foment the communal tension and hit Jammu’s
economy. Hence, the time chosen for the terror attacks coincided with the
Navratra festivals that are not only celebrated with great devotion by the
locals but also attract large number of pilgrims from rest of the country to
the holy shrine of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Ji. It is to the credit of the people
of Jammu that they have not fallen prey to the nefarious designs of the enemy.
Pakistan must realise that t Indians are resilient and wont be provoked by such
cowardly acts which in fact make their resolve to fight terror even stronger.

Pakistan continues to use terror as an
instrument of state policy to further its so called “national interests”.
Despite having been militarily defeated and diplomatically snubbed it continues
to be obsessed with the idea of Kashmir being its “umbilical cord”. Having
realised that it cannot defeat India militarily it has adopted the policy of
“thousand cuts” to keep India bleeding. It continues to classify the terrorists
in Pakistan as “good” and “bad” terrorists. All those terrorist organisations
that carry out terror attacks against India are termed “good” and their leaders
enjoy the patronage of the government despite being declared as proclaimed
international terrorists by the United Nations, USA and many western countries.
The likes of Hafiz Sayeed, Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, Dawood Ibrahim etc. are
termed as “strategic assets” by the Pak Army, ISI and the establishment. No
international rules, restrictions or bans apply to them because they are key
players in the plan to bleed India. Thus, Pakistan’s double talk on terror
continues unabated. The recent twin terror attacks thus need to be viewed in
this light.

Of late, Pakistan has preferred the
International Border (IB) sector over the Line of Control (LC) sector for
carrying out infiltration for terror attacks. There are many reasons for this,
of which weather is one such reason but very minor. The major reason is the
proximity of NH 1 to the IB which runs at a distance of 5-15 km from the
border. NH provides a target of strategic importance within striking distance
that can draw immediate media attention. ‘Striking Distance’ being the distance
within which they have the capability to carry out a one-night operation ,ie,
infiltrate and strike on the same night thus reducing the chances of being
intercepted after crossing the border. The terrain in this sector in form of
broken ground and numerous nullahs (running East-West) also assists
infiltration. A number of brick kilns and mobile towers along the NH provide
good navigational land marks at night.

There are many lucrative targets both
military and civilian available within the striking distance as compared to the
LC sector. Another important factor is the density of troop deployment. The
density is much less as compared to the LC sector which apart from a strong
anti-infiltration deployment also has a very effective counter-terrorist grid
in the hinterland. The Pak authorities also hope that a strike in this sector
may rouse communal passions leading to communal riots thus damaging the
harmonious social fabric of the state to further its failed agenda of “Two
Nation Theory”. Pakistan’s insistence on terming the IB as “Working Boundary”
and thus refusing to accept it as an accepted international border is also a
reason for preferring this sector so that it can claim the entire Jammu &
Kashmir as disputed territory. Such terror attacks can also be used as a
diversionary tactics to aid infiltration of bigger groups to the Bhaderwah-
Doda belt via Basholi-Banni. In the past this route has been used by the
terrorists both for infiltration/exfiltration as well as for rest and recoup.
Thus the area of Banni-Macheddi in the depth also assumes importance.

It is worth examining as to how the
terrorists manage to cross the border despite the claim of the BSF that it is
well guarded. The aim is not to point finger at any particular force. All
security forces are carrying out their assigned roles to the best of their
abilities within the given resources. Is it then the question of resources? I
have already highlighted the aspects of terrain. Another important point to
note is that the border fence has been erected against the lie of the ground
and hence easily gets damaged during the monsoons or periods of heavy rain thus
creating gaps. Naturally to cover these gaps greater strength of man power for
deployment is needed affecting deployment elsewhere. Moreover, it is not
difficult to breach a linear deployment like the current pattern on the border.
For the counter infiltration deployment to be effective, it needs to be an
all-weather multi-layered deployment in tiers. A counter smuggling and a
counter infiltration deployment cannot follow the same pattern. It has to be
dynamic rather than static. The first tier of deployment should be based on
all-weather, 24x7 surveillance radars, sensors, hand-held thermal imagers,
night vision binoculars and alarm systems. It must be complimented with
physical deployment based on threat assessment and terrain.

The night ambushes should be laid on a
dynamic grid pattern rather than static linear deployment. The vulnerable areas
like nullahs and gaps need to be covered with adequate deployment. Each border
out post (BOP) must have an operational command post manned by a team led by an
officer which should monitor the data being received from the surveillance grid
with authority to redeploy ambushes under its operational control. The entire
deployment needs to be backed by a reliable and secure communication system.

The second tier needs to be deployed between
the IB and NH based on high grounds or dominating ground. A similar dynamic
grid of ambushes equipped with night vision devices and night sights need to be
established in the second tier also. This tier also needs to be complimented
with police nakkas. However, the aspect of communications needs to be
coordinated and rehearsed. The third tier needs to be based on the NH and areas
immediately in depth. Village Defence Committees (VDCs) should be incorporated
in this tier. VDCs need to be properly armed, well trained and highly
motivated. Long range Surveillance Radars (LSRs) along with surveillance
command posts could also form part of the third tier. The readers would agree
that the ultimate question is of availability of resources. But then no price
is heavy for a nation when it comes to ensuring peace for her citizens. There
is a saying “If you want peace be prepared for war.” The unified command must
put its heads together to make the IB sector impregnable in order to beat the
nefarious designs of the troika that rules Pakistan and is determined to keep
the pot boiling in J&K to ensure that the citizens of this state are denied
the dividends of peace.

Looking inwards, those advocating revocation
of AFSPA must rethink whether the time is ripe for it or by insisting for its
removal they may be helping the troika in Pakistan. To sum up, a pro-active
approach towards border management, surveillance and infiltration is the need
of the hour. To achieve this, an integrated, professional and well trained
intelligence network is a pre-requisite. This network should not rely only on
electronic intelligence (ELINT) but should also be backed up by human
intelligence (HUMINT). The training camps and launch pads need to be under
constant surveillance. Since a large number of army camps are also located in
the area, there should be a seamless integration between BSF, police,
intelligence agencies and the army. The issue of command and control should be
unambiguous. There should be no duplicity at all. The coordination between
neighbouring units deployed on the border should be flawless since inter unit
and inter formation boundaries are always vulnerable. It needs to be understood
that till such time we make our borders impregnable we will continue to be the
victims of cross-border terror because Pakistan is not going to relent from
bleeding India.

(The author is a Jammu based security and
strategic analyst. The views expressed in the article are entirely personal. He
can be contacted at anil5457@gmail.com)

Quaid-e-Azam
Mohammad Ali Jinnah has been turning in his grave for decades. All his life Mr
Jinnah fought for the rights and protection of the Muslim minority community in
India, eventually succeeding in creating a separate homeland for them called
Pakistan. Indeed, in his famous speech to the Constituent Assembly of the new
state of Pakistan, he pledged to protect the rights of non-Muslim minorities
unequivocally as “equal citizens of the state”.

Unfortunately,
however, the history of Pakistan shows that the principles of humanitarian
Islam that were expected to guide the new state in safeguarding minorities have
been distorted by the practitioners of Islam in Pakistan to erode the writ of
the state in general and target the minorities in particular.

This is quite
extraordinary since the definition of a “terrorist” in the Anti-Terrorist Act
is focused squarely on “religious” cause and effect: “Terrorism means the use
or threat of action where the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing
a religious, sectarian or ethnic case …involves serious violence against … a
public servant”.

A prime example of
the unspoken conspiracy in the bowels of the state to condone or dissemble
“religious” motives regardless of their criminal nature and content was
provided recently by a judgment of the Islamabad High Court that has
dumbfounded all. The court has declared that Mumtaz Qadri, the self-confessed
assassin of ex-Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, is not a terrorist. The court
has completely ignored or denied the definition of a terrorist in the ATA as
given above. It is also quite extraordinary how the judges came to the
conclusion that the act of mowing down Mr Taseer in broad daylight in a public
place did not create a sense of harassment and fear in society at large despite
the public statement of the murderer that he meant to send exactly such a
message to people like Mr Taseer and those who sympathized with his point of
view. Mr Taseer was murdered for arguing that a Christian woman accused of blasphemy
had been wrongly judged and sentenced to death by courts fearful of violent
mullahs.

Until now, the
conservative PMLN governments of Nawaz Sharif have been as lax in defending the
rights of minorities as the pseudo-secular governments of the PPP. Indeed, the
military establishment is actually guilty of protecting such Islamist groups
because of their readiness to fight the military’s jihadist causes in Kashmir
and Afghanistan. But the new military leadership under General Raheel Sharif
has vowed to confront and undo all manner of terrorists who have laid Pakistan
low, whether of the “Islamist” kind in FATA or the ethnic kind in Karachi. In
the latter case, we have witnessed a ferocious crackdown on criminal elements
in the MQM, raids on that holy of holies Nine Zero and confessional outpourings
of MQM terrorists on death row. We’ve seen a new resolve to try and unravel the
2012 barbarous burning of Karachi’s Baldia factory in which 289 people lost
their lives, and bring the perpetrators to book.

Why then, it needs
to be asked, has General Sharif not used his righteous clout to degrade the sectarian
terrorists who have besieged our minorities and are ruthlessly targeting them?
When will the clean-up operation start against the killers of Shias,
Christians, Hindus, Ahmedis, Hazaras etc? When will the special laws designed
to combat terrorism like the ATA, PPA and military courts spring into action
and deliver on the promise and dream of the Quaid-e-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah?
If the current military leadership’s policies are truly a departure from the
dissembling, compromises, conciliations and criminal neglect of its
predecessors, surely the time has come to tackle terrorists of all hue.

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Winston Churchill once quipped, “History will be kind to me for I
intend to write it”.

Sadly,
that approach doesn’t work. Nowhere on this planet is this more glaringly
evident than it is in Pakistan. This country, built upon the broken dreams and
bloodied bones of those that gave their lives for its creation, is, today, the
center of militancy and extremism. Today, we are pointed out, by name, as an
engine that creates ignorance and strife in the world.

One
has to wonder if the man who is, mostly, singularly credited with the creation
of Pakistan actually knew what he was doing. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the
poster-child for Westernized Muslims – is painted as a paragon of virtue,
competence and dedication; why is it, then, that his creation has gone the way
of Frankenstein’s Monster?

Or
is something missing from this picture?

I
am of the opinion that there is. And it is of vital relevance in terms of
explaining what has become of this country in the last six decades.

The Narrative – Then

I mentioned a bit about
narratives in the introductory part of this article. These narratives are likecreation
myths. They explain where we come from; what our purpose is;
what we dedicate our efforts and skills towards. One only has to have a casual
glance at the events between 1910 and 1947 to realize that the narrative that
Pakistan has set for itself as State mandated policy is so twisted and
misaligned with history that little in the way of truth has survived.

The
power struggle, between major population-based stakeholders, to find a dominant
narrative had been going on in the subcontinent since the advent of the British
Raj, at the very least (though that is not to say that the Hindu majority that
found itself being ruled by a Muslim minority didn’t have such a struggle in
place already). In this struggle, the Khilafat movement saw its eventual
demise; even other pan-islamicist movements saw little in the way of success.
In this flurry entered a young Jinnah and, through the use of his intellect,
insight and foresight, he quickly climbed the ladder of merit.

This,
to me, proves that even back then the Muslims of the subcontinent – as
oppressed as they are portrayed to be – did not really give much credence to
the capability of a theologically oriented State apparatus, rather preferred a
modern, National State system. In Jinnah, they had found pretty much everything
that they wanted to emulate. Brazen, confident, well dressed, well spoken,
educated, successful professional – Jinnah was the Brown Muslim’s celebrity.
The ‘Pakistan movement’ may have been rooted in the Muslim identity – but it is
the evolution of that identity that was selected as the basis of unified action
rather than a strict, orthodox and syncretic rendition.

The Narrative – Now

Today,
we see a very different picture of Jinnah hanging on our walls. Gone is the
suited, cigar smoking Jinnah replaced by a Sherwani clad Quaid-e-Azam. Today,
no State channel repeats excerpts from Jinnah’s speech of August 11th, 1947
which can have its spirit summed up thusly:

You
are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your
mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may
belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the
business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England, conditions,
some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman
Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some
States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed
against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We
are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction
between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed
and another.

Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, Speech to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. August 11th, 1947

For
the last many decades, such quotes that can enlighten even the contemporary
Pakistani, are replaced by either procedural or nationalistic or the outright
mundane. For example:

1)
“There is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan”.

2)
“Think 100 times before taking a decision but once that decision is taken stand
by it as one man”.

3)
“I have full faith in my people, that they will rise to every occasion worthy
of our past Islamic history, glory and traditions”.

4)
“United India could have never worked”.

The
list is endless. These are some of the examples of what the State wants us to
know about Jinnah’s thought processes… and it does very little in the way of
explaining anything.

This
begs the question: Why are they lying to us?

Fact or Fiction

A
greater than cursory study of history reveals that a struggle had been waged
for Muslim independence well before Quaid-e-Azam arrived at the scene. But
there was another feud, of even greater relevance to Pakistan’s independence
that was brewing for some time. Congress had decided to enforce a land ceiling
in order to curb greater feudal influence in Hindustani society. But the
largest land holdings were situated in West Punjab due to its highly developed
agricultural resources (due largely to the canal system). The Punjab Unionist
Party – a grouping of the largest and most influential feudal elite – literally
drained itself into the Muslim League in the early 1930s – incidentally, very
close to the time Jinnah, himself, joined the Muslim League. There are some
historians, such as Dr. Mubarik Ali, who claim that the chief motivator for a
separate Muslim homeland was not differing identities or traditions, rather the
need to escape this anti-feudal measure.

Could
it be that an elite that wanted to preserve its financial and agricultural
interests, then through subterfuge, is the same elite that, today, holds onto
the reins of power?

The Two Jinnahs

While
there is reason and evidence to suggest that what is portrayed as the reason
for the existence of Pakistan is problematic, it is not to say that Jinnah
himself was a simple man with simple motivations. The passage from his speech
to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan is exemplary, by any standard.

But
what of his other speeches which were directly in contradiction with that one?

I
cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and
mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based
on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as
they were 1300 years ago.

The
tragedy is that were this quotation only from a speech directly after his
address to the constituent assembly, it could have been explained in terms of a
changed or perhaps even evolved point of view. But, reference to Pakistan as a
country firmly rooted in religious doctrine 10 years before the constituent
assembly was even formed simply leaves one dumbfounded.

When
we say this flag is the flag of Islam they think we are introducing religion
into politics – a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code.
It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. In fact,
it contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we
talk of Islam we take it as all-embracing word. We do not mean any ill. The
foundation of our Islamic code is that we stand for liberty, equality and
fraternity.

Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, Speech to Gaya Muslim League, January 1st, 1938

The
facility with which Jinnah could play to the gallery; identify his target
audience and mold his message accordingly is one of the key reasons, in my
opinion, that Pakistan never really formulated a strong enough national
narrative at the time of partition because everyone was gaining his or her
independence for a different reason. And, sadly, each one of them had the
support of Jinnah in that reasoning.

Culmination:
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan

It
is understandable that at independence-time leader of a fractured and beaten
community should and must gather ‘the flock’ under the banner for salvation. I,
personally, don’t see a problem with that fact. But the fact that he passed
away so soon after the creation of Pakistan without having the time to visibly
translate his actual vision for the country into reality compounded this
contradiction several fold. While the educated political intelligentsia, that
inherited the administration of the country after Jinnah’s death, is labelled
as incompetent and unworthy (Khotay Sikkay in Jinnah’s own words), it failed to
establish a dominant modern narrative for the people. And in that vacuum
religious demagogues and clerics – who had initially shunned the very
proposition of Pakistan as preposterous and ‘Kufar’ – gained that opportunity
to establish, strengthen and eventually destroy any alternate version of the
independence-time history.

By
doing so, not only has the new generation lost its essential and real
foundation but also become poisoned by layers upon layers of poisoned
chronicles. ‘India is the enemy’ is considered an obvious truth. ‘The west is
out to destroy Islam and our civilization’ is considered the mantra of the
pure.

While
it would be purely academic to speculate on which side of the argument Jinnah
would have eventually taken a stand on, had he lived long enough, I strongly
believe that the speeches and quotations of Jinnah that are shared today, and
the way in which they contradict one another, have done little service to the
new generation.

Would
Pakistan have been different with regards to militancy if Jinnah’s vision had
seen fruition? Perhaps.

But
my question is: Which Jinnah? And, more importantly, which vision?

The Jammu & Kashmir government on Sunday unveiled a Rs 46,473 crore budgetpacked with a slew of schemes for farmers, traders, women and employees while stamping out "plan and non-plan classification".

The first budget of the PDP-BJP alliance government, led by Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed, projects a resource gap of Rs 4,336 crore, which it plans to finance with grants to state under the 14th Finance Commission grants and without seeking any additional funding.

In his Budget speech, state Finance MinisterHaseeb Drabu said: "This is not a good position to be in. In fact, if anything, it should be exactly the other way round. But there is no way I can help it as it is a legacy of the last 30 years if not more."

"In 2015-16, the total public expenditure is budgeted to be Rs 46,473 crore. Of this Rs 11,246 crore is for building assets and infrastructure. The remaining Rs 35,227 crore is for current or revenue expenditure," the former economist said.

"The total revenue receipts of the state in 2015-16 are budgeted to be Rs 42,137 crore leaving a resource gap of Rs 4,336 crore. This is going to be financed by prepositioning of the 14th Finance Commission grants without seeking any additional funding," Drabu said.

Drabu later told reporters that the broad thrust of the budget is on revival of Jammu and Kashmir economy and it has discarded old plan and non-plan classification, while the focus is on a three-pronged initiative of "government, governance and changes".

Following the replacement of Planning Commission by NITI Aayog and the acceptance of the 14th Finance Commission Award, Drabu said, the state government has completely changed the structure of its budget.

"J&K is perhaps the first state in the country to align its budget to the changes in the federal fiscal system," he said.

"The entire old classification of the plan and non-plan has been discarded. This is a major change which has far reaching implications on the allocation, efficiency and monitoring of public expenditure," he said.

"This change will demystify the budget to a great extent. Now there will be only two categories of expenditure, current and capital; the former being what is spent to meet our daily expenses and the latter is what is spent on making assets on the ground," he said.

"In the years to come, we can start the mapping of asset creation with money that has been spent. This was impossible in the earlier classification. In the next budget we will provide this House with the details of the physical assets that have been created on the ground by the money that was spent".

He said total revenue receipts has been estimated at Rs 37,814 crore and capital receipts at Rs 4,323 crore with own tax revenue estimated at Rs 8,006 crore. The state's share of this central taxes is up at Rs 8,088 crore as against the figure of Rs 4,477 crores in the revised estimates for the year 2014-15. Drabu said revenue deficit grant is Rs 9,892 crore as against Rs 2,096 crore in 2014-15.

As many as Rs 499 crore is to be devolved to PRIs and ULBs under 14th Finance Commission grants. The earmarked provision of Rs 2200 crore is for DA to employees and pensioners, Rs 154 crore provision for 10 % employees share under new pension scheme introduced from January 2010, Rs 1017 crore for allocation for district sector capital expenditure.

Announcing new initiatives, he said that he waived off demand charges on electricity for seven months from September 2014 to March 2015. He announced exemption for passenger tax on vehicles which remained off due to floods from September to December 2014, remission of stamp duty on documents on fresh loans to persons effected due to floods, exemption under GST in respect of lodging services provided by hotels, lodges, guest houses to be extended up to March 2016.

Similarly, he announced exemption to hoteliers from payment of entry tax on goods imported from outside the state, waived off of 50% of KCC loans for smallest and vulnerable farmers, introduction of gold, silver loans for certain categories of registered dealers/traders. Besides other announcements include contemplating of amnesty under GST Act 1962 for waiving off interest and penalty, setting up alternative dispute resolution tribunal to speed up settlement of cases of traders, VAT exemption on paddy, rice, wheat, pulses, floor, Maida, sugi and baisen till March 2016, exemption of toll on fresh vegetables, VAT remission for local industry.

To restructure ailing Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) in the state, he announced financial restructuring and administrative reorganisation of all the ailing public sector undertakings besides setting up of asset reconstruction company in partnership with J&K Bank.

"Government to float Dal Development bond for restoration of Dal, set up of pesticides revolution authority, (give) incentives to any reputed international firm to set up a unit in Valley and introduce loss of revenue insurance cover," he said.

To deal with the abysmal child sex ratio, he said, "Contribution of Rs 1000 per month on the behalf of every new born girl child for next 14 years and on reaching 21 years, she would receive around Rs 6.5 lakh under a scheme. To begin with, a pilot in six districts with the most adverse child sex ratio."

Besides this, a new scheme "Aasra" was announced only for widows or destitute women with no source of income. There would be a zero balance saving account, life insurance of Rs 25,000, an accident cover of Rs 25,000, sickness and disease cover of Rs 5000 and maturity/survival benefits of Rs 25,000 after five years, he said.

Similarly, he said there would be a scheme to provide succour to 50,000 widows and destitute women of the state. An amount of Rs 100 crore has been provided for this purpose.

Drabu proposed J&K state family benefit scheme, wherein families whose income doesn't exceed Rs 75,000 per annum and who lose their breadwinner and are not covered under any other benefits, will get a one-time financial assistance of Rs 40,000. A provision of Rs 20 crore is being made for this scheme, he added.

On taxation, he said that the existing rate of sales tax in lieu of services is being enhanced by 2 %. There will be a levy of 5 % VAT on computers and computer peripherals, a uniform tax rate of VAT of 13.5 % on inverters and UPS and a modest increase of five paisa per kilogram in the existing rates of toll.

"I...propose to enhance the existing rate of sales tax in lieu of services by 2 % under the J&K GST Act, 1962. This measure is expected to generate a revenue of Rs 150 crore...propose a levy of 5 % VAT on computers and computer peripherals. This is likely to garner resources to the tune of Rs 10 crore," he added.

"Members are aware that Toll at Lakhanpur is charged on weight regardless of value. I propose a modest increase of five paisa per Kilogram in the existing rates of toll from the next fiscal," he said.

In view of the economic structuring, the government also contemplates to outsource Lakhanpur toll plaza, he said. On the issue of government employees, he said that the DA (Dearness Allowance) pending March 31, 2015 shall be credited into the GP fund account of the employees while DA will be paid in cash from April onwards. All employees covered under the NPS (National Pension Scheme) and pensioners will, however, receive the arrears in cash, he said.

"The revenue component of erstwhile plan shifted on revenue account addressing the long pending demand of employees borne on plan budget," he said. "Women employees of the state should be treated at par with central government employees with regard to admissibility of child career leave," he added.

The government will announce a high powered committee of ministers and some external experts, to tackle the gigantic problem of regularisation of more than sixty one thousand workers engaged on a casual basis, he added. Government also proposed to provide Rs 2 crore for enhancement of the retainership of various classes of law officers.

On a pilot basis, one village will be developed as a Model Basmati village in Jammu Division. One Model Apple village and one Model Saffron village will be developed in Kashmir Division.

Similarly, one village will also be developed in the Ladakh region to demonstrate the use of solar dryers and modern technologies for horticultural processing, he added. The government proposes to give focus on construction of Model Ethnographic Villages to showcase intrinsic cultural and heritage strengths of our people, he said, adding the first pilot cultural village will be the one that was inhabited by Kashmiri Pandits.

"We propose to have land bank of over 10,000 kanals across the state which we propose to develop as Industrial Estates," he said.

On the new budgeting system, Drabu said: "Another benefit ...that I am introducing is that the large number of government servants who would have to wait for months together to get their salaries under plan head, will not have to wait any longer".

"By shifting all the plan revenue expenditure onto the revenue side from 2015-16, the hardships of these employees will be a distant memory," he said.

"In the new system, we will formulate our own scheme of financing the state budget. We will change the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act next year to ensure that over the next three years, it is mandated that borrowings are used only to finance creation of capital assets," he said.

"I hope to use the budget to enlarge the constituency of peace in the state. I hope to use the budget to share with the people of J&K the dividends of peace, something that they have been deprived of for many years," he said.

Drabu said he hopes to use the budget as an instrument for sustainable growth and balanced development within the state. In the process, he hoped to have a budget in which the revenues cover the expenditures of the state government.

"It is a tall order but I can assure this House that this government will give it the best that we have with sincerity of thought and honesty of purpose," he said.

"There are three main themes in my budget; first, build the credibility and confidence of the government in itself and its financial management," Drabu said.

"Let me do this by asserting in this House that I shall not seek any financial assistance or grants from the Centre other than what is provided for in the Constitution of India for all the special category states as a part of the federal fiscal system," the finance minister said.

"In common parlance, I am asserting that I shall not go with a begging bowl to New Delhi. This despite the fact that we not only have a friendly government at the Centre, we also have an exceptionally sensitive and accommodating Union Finance Minister," he said.

"By doing so, I do hope to restore the dignity of the people of J&K who are forever being accused of surviving on subsidies and largesse," he said.

"The goal of our government is economic self-reliance and fiscal autonomy. All of us want the J&K government to be able to pay not only for the salaries of its employees, but also for the development of economy and prosperity of people. The fiscal strategy and stance of this budget is expansionary. Not that I had much choice in it. With the people of the state in distress and the economy in shambles post the devastating floods last year, it is the responsibility of the government not only to give relief but also to rehabilitate and reconstruct", he said.

Thursday, 19 March 2015

Some people of Jammu and Kashmir State want to observe 16 March as a ‘national day’ of Jammu and Kashmir, because to them it was on this date (16 March 1846) State of Jammu and Kashmir came in to being; and they also regard Gulab Singh as a father of ‘Kashmiri nation’. It appears that they overlook the fact that geography of Jammu and Kashmir State that we claim and which was part of Jammu and Kashmir State on 16 August 1947 is different to what was in 1846.

This is very contentious topic, and may not help us to move forward to achieve our goal of unification and independence. Because of inherent dangers and low level of tolerance of some people, I was advised by some friends to stay out of this debate because it could further divide people; and I may end up making new enemies, as if I was short of them already.

All great men and conquerors are controversial figures – some admire them and some oppose them. What these people do or propose to do is not in everyone’s interest. In other words they challenge the status quo, and it is only natural that those who benefit from the existing system will oppose new ideas and invasion which will change the system or beneficiaries.

Maharajah Gulab Singh may not fall in to the category of great men; however, he made a valuable contribution to the politics of the region, and cut out a powerful role for himself. A lot of negative things are associated with him to belittle him and to present him as an evil man and a cruel ruler. Most of things are untrue and were levelled against him because of his religion and ethnicity. If he was undemocratic, unkind and cruel ruler, then question is which ruler of that time was pro people, democratic and kind?

I acknowledge I was also influenced by this propaganda and like other people in the JKLF my nationalism was also not fully matured when I did my Mphil research – Kashmir and the Partition of India - in late 1980s. Like many other nationalists of the time, perhaps I was also more of a Muslim nationalist than a Kashmiri nationalist; and was rather unfair to him. Prime objective of most students is to get thesis approved, and perhaps I was no different. Later on in life when I read some books by some non Muslims, and then I compared Gulab Singh in light of the new information, he looked a different man.

Anyhow, Gulab Singh came from a very ordinary background; and it is wrong that Gulab Singh’s family ruled Jammu for ‘centuries’. His father Kishore Singh was a poor man, but he belonged to a Dogra Rajput tribe of Jammu. The Raja of Jammu, Jeet Singh, was also a Dogra Rajput and was a distant relative of Gulab Singh’s father. Gulab Singh was born on 18 October 1792; and when Maharaja Ranjit Singh invaded Jammu in 1808, Gulab Singh was only 16 years old teenager; but he was very ambitious and brave. He and his tribe fought in defence of Jammu.

Even though young Gulab Singh lost his first war; but he gained a valuable experience from this war. After the invasion, the Raja of Jammu only had internal autonomy; and Jammu was a principality of the Sikh Empire. At the age of 17 he left Jammu in search of employment and new opportunities. He worked for various Rulers, including a Raja of Bhimber Sultan Khan who was a Chib Rajput. Gulab Singh joined his army as a soldier and received 3 rupees per month. 1

State of Bhimber

District Bhimber now is part of Pakistani Administered Kashmir known as Azad Kashmir; and in many ways is not that significant in politics of Azad Kashmir or in the nationalist struggle. However, Bhimber had an important role because of its geography and rulers.

Briefly, Raja Chib Chand was the first Raja of Chib dynasty; and when Ibrahim Lodhi ruled Delhi Raja Dhram Chand ruled this area. Ibrahim Lodhi had some serious illness; and he heard that Raja Dhram Chand could treat him. Ibrahim Lodhi summoned him to Delhi, and after the treatment Ibrahim Lodhi urged him to convert to Islam and stay in Delhi. He married daughter of one of his Minister to Dhram Chand who became Raja Shadab Khan after becoming a Muslim. 2

He had a Hindu wife Rani Thakiaal waiting for him in Bhimber but he was unable to leave Delhi due to strict supervision. When he eventually escaped Commander Haibat Khan Qandari chased him and in a battler near Bhimber both lost their lives. Royal troops which came from Delhi claimed that he was a Muslim, so Raja Shadab Khan was buried as a Muslim; and is now known as Baba Shadi Shaheed, a famous shrine in Azad Kashmir; and Hindus regarded him as Seedh Shadi. 3

Author of History of Chhabal, Major Thakkar Singh claims that Raja Shadab Khan had two sons from the Muslim wife, and they stayed in Delhi and never came to Bhimber. Furthermore, he claims that he had four wives with six sons. 4 This claim is refuted by Mohammed Fazal Shoq, who asserts that Raja Shadab Khan had only two wives, one Muslim and one Hindu which he married before he converted. From Rani Thakiaal he had Raja Dhram Chand and Bhoop Chand; and from Muslim wife he had Mull Khan and Gul Mohammed Khan.

Controversy ensued as to who should rule, sons of both wives claimed to become Raja; result was division of the State of Bhimber. Western part of the State was given to Bahoop Chand and Eastern part to Raja Mull Khan. 5 Area given to Raja Mull Khan was named as a State of Khari Kahriali. This was also later on occupied by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1810. 6 I will explain later on as to what is the significance of this detail in formation of this area.

After death of his father Raja Suleman Khan in 1772, Raja Sultan Khan became the ruler and expanded his rule to Barnala, Kharian, Gujrat, Noshera, Mirpur and Kotli. After death of Maharaja Ranjit Dev of Jammu, he declared his independence.7 As a result of some differences with his wife who interfered in affairs of the government, Raja Sultan imprisoned his Minister Sojan Singh; who later on escaped to Lahore and encouraged Maharaja Ranjit Singh to attack Bhimber. Raja Sultan Khan defeated the Sikh army, but Ranjit Singh sent a large force and arrested Sultan Khan and imprisoned him in Lahore for seven years

Ranjit Singh released him on promise that he would help to invade Kashmir. This was his third attempt to invade Kashmir and he took all the precautions. He ensured that all the local chieftains from Bhimber to Shopian were on his side that he could have safe and peaceful passage and that his rear was also safe. Referring to Raja Sultan Khan’s alliance with Maharaja Ranjit Singh, a famous Kashmiri historian, Yousaf Saraf comments:

‘It is unfortunate that a chieftain who had, only seven years back, rallied considerable support and given a resolute battle to the Sikhs had made a hero in the area, should have been so demoralised by seven years captivity as to readily agreed as his collaborator. He took oath on Kalmia to support the invasion and faithfully adhered to his commitment.’ 8

I can’t give too many details of this expedition as the article will become too long, but the fact is that without active support and know- how of the area by Raja Sultan Khan, Raja Aghar Khan of Rajouri and other chieftains of the region there was no way the Sikh army could have invaded Kashmir. In other words some constituent parts of the present day State of Jammu and Kashmir actively helped invasion of Kashmir.

Gulab Singh becomes Raja of Jammu

Gulab Singh joined Lahore Darbar as a running footman in court of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1810. After a few years his father Kishore Singh, his brothers Dhian Singh and Sucheet Singh also joined the Lahore Darbar. They all played important role in strengthening the Sikh Empire; however Gulab Singh graduated in art of warfare and leadership and became among the most fearsome and bright generals of the Sikh army.

Some people in order to discredit Gulab Singh present him as a low class hypocrite, cheat and sycophant; and claim that he achieved his status in Lahore Darbar due to deceit and flattering. Fact is that Gulab Singh was among the very best Generals of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and one cannot become a brilliant general by flattering.

These critics won’t tell that Gulab Singh distinguished himself in many military expeditions. As a general of the Sikh army, he invaded Multan in 1816. In 1816, he, on his own initiative, invaded an important hill town of Riasi. He also played a leading role in invasion of Dera Ghazi Khan. Also he invaded Rajouri from Aghar Khan and Kishtwar from Raja Tegh Muhamamd Singh in 1821. Apart from that he even fought and defeated his own clansman, Mian Dido Jamwal in Trikota. Mian Dido was a Dogra warrior who led many military expeditions against the Sikh rule in the region.

Maharaja Ranjit, after another conflict with Raja Jeet Singh of Jammu, annexed Jammu. Because of great services rendered to the Sikh empire by family of Gulab Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh appointed Kishore Singh, father of Gulab Singh, as the Raja of Jammu. After death of Raja Kishore Singh in 1822, Gulab Singh became Raja of Jammu; but he was still an ally of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and not recognised as an independent ruler.

After becoming a Raja of Jammu he continued with his conquests and in 1824, he conquered fort of Samartah, which was near Mansar Lake. He continued to serve the Sikh Empire faithfully; and Maharaja Ranjit Singh even entrusted him to administer areas of northern Punjab with salt mines and also towns like Jhelum, Rohtas and Gujrat.

When the Afghan armies attacked Sikh Fort of Jamrud, which is between Peshawar and Lundi Kotal, Maharaja Ranjit Singh again had to rely on services of Dogra brothers and he sent Gulab Singh and his brother Raja Dhian Singh as reinforcement. On hearing that the reinforcement was on the way, Prince Akbar Khan fled back to Kabul. Apart from Akbar Khan there were other tribal leaders like Painda Khan Afridi who rebelled against the Sikh rule, but on orders of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh he brutally crushed the rebellion of Muslim tribesmen and killed tens of thousands of people, plundered the region and enslaved women.

Treaty of Amritsar

Those who dislike Gulab Singh they will never be won over to admire him. I am not claiming that he was a very kind ruler. He was a warrior and adventurer. Like warriors of his time he also committed human rights violations. Tell me a war where human rights are not abused, it even happens in 21st Century. Human rights violation is a serious crime, but it is considered as a collateral damage, a part of the warfare.

Some Kashmiri leaders, either due to innocence or due to influence of Pakistani propaganda claim that Gulab Singh’s family had no right to rule Jammu and Kashmir after lapse of the British Paramountcy. They claim that the Treaty of Amritsar was a kind of lease which expired after 100 years; or after end of the British Raj in India. Full text of the Treaty is produced below and thinking people can decide for themselves that it was not a lease; and it did not limit in anyway the right of Maharaja Hari Singh to rule after the British left India.

Treaty of Amritsar March 16, 1846

The treaty between the British Government on the one part and Maharajah Gulab Singh of Jammu on the other concluded on the part of the British Government by Frederick Currie, Esq. and Brever-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under the orders of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of her Britannic Majesty's most Honorable Privy Council, Governor-General of the possessions of the East India Company, to direct and control all the affairs in the East Indies and by Maharajah Gulab Singh in person - 1846.

Article 1/ The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi including Chamba and excluding Lahul, being part of the territories ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th March, 1846.

Article 2/ The eastern boundary of the tract transferred by the foregoing article to Maharajah Gulab Singh shall be laid down by the Commissioners appointed by the British Government and Maharajah Gulab Singh respectively for that purpose and shall be defined in a separate engagement after survey.

Article 3/ In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the provisions of the foregoing article Maharajah Gulab Singh will pay to the British Government the sum of seventy-five lakhs of rupees (Nanukshahee), fifty lakhs to be paid on or before the 1st October of the current year, A.D., 1846.

Article 4/ The limits of territories of Maharajah Gulab Singh shall not be at any time changed without concurrence of the British Government.

Article 5/ Maharajah Gulab Singh will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any disputes or question that may arise between himself and the Government of Lahore or any other neighbouring State, and will abide by the decision of the British Government.

Article 6/ Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions.

Article 7/ Maharajah Gulab Singh engages never to take to retain in his service any British subject nor the subject of any European or American State without the consent of the British Government.

Article 8/ Maharajah Gulab Singh engages to respect in regard to the territory transferred to him, the provisions of Articles V, VI and VII of the separate Engagement between the British Government and the Lahore Durbar, dated 11th March, 1846.

Article 9/ The British Government will give its aid to Maharajah Gulab Singh in protecting his territories from external enemies.

Article 10/ Maharajah Gulab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British Government and will in token of such supremacy present annually to the British Government one horse, twelve shawl goats of approved breed (six male and six female) and three pairs of Cashmere shawls. This Treaty of ten articles has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esq. and Brever-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under directions of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General, on the part of the British Government and by Maharajah Gulab Singh in person, and the said Treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General. (Done at Amritsar the sixteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, corresponding with the seventeenth day of Rubee-ul-Awal (1262 Hijree).

(Signed) H. Hardinge (Seal)

(Signed) F. Currie

(Signed) H.M. Lawrence

Treaty of Amritsar analysed

Article 1/ makes it absolutely clear that it was not a lease and that, ‘The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies..’ Also it is clear that the word ‘sold’ which is commonly used to demean the Treaty and humiliate the Maharaja Gulab Singh was not part of the text. It stated that the territories were transferred.

Many people forget that Jammu and all the territories conquered by Raja Gulab Singh before the Anglo Sikh war were technically part of the Sikh empire; and the British could have annexed those areas under the control of Raja Gulab Singh as well.

Many people accuse Raja Gulab Singh for stabbing the Sikh Empire. This is far from truth. He and his family very faithfully served the Sikh Empire. They extended boundaries of the Sikh Empire and defended it with their sweat and blood.

After death of Maharajah Ranjit Singh situation changed dramatically, and the Sikh Empire plunged in chaos and civil war due to internal conflicts. Dogra brothers were still loyal to the Lahore Darbar; but those who were challenging the rule of young Maharajah Dalip Singh were not happy with role and influence of the Dogra brothers which they exhibited in defence of the Lahore Darbar.

As a result of this prolonged civil war in Punjab Gulab Singh’s family suffered immensely. He lost two brothers, Dhian Singh and Sucheet Singh. He also lost his nephew, Hira Singh, and his two sons, Udham Singh and Sohan Singh. Despite this sacrifice if people accuse him for the downfall of the Sikh Empire then it is totally unfair and historically incorrect.

Some writers place responsibility of the defeat of the Sikhs on their civil war that greatly weakened them; and cowardliness of some Sikh commanders like Lal Singh, Tej Singh, and Ranjoor Singh, who abandoned the war and ran away from the battlefield. According to historian Ashq Hussain Bhat, ‘Lal Singh ran away from Mudki battlefield on December 18, Tej Singh from Ferozshahr on December 21, and Ranjoor Singh from Aliwal on December 28.’ 9

Raja Gulab Singh was in Jammu when the war was going on, and the Sikh army was demoralised and on the run. So Rani Jindan requested Gulab Singh for help, but he only reached Lahore on 27 January 1846, where he was received as a de facto Chief Minister.

The final battle between the Sikh army and the British was fought on 10 February 1846 at Sobran, where the Commander in Chief of the Sikh army Tej Singh fled the battlefield. When a commander loses heart and runs away no army can continue the war. From then onwards it was a question of getting the best deal from the British in negotiations and save the remaining Sikh Kingdom. Raja Gulab Singh as a Chief negotiator of the Lahore Darbar met the British in Kasoor on 15 February 1846.

Because the war was regarded as ‘unprovoked aggression’ against the British, the Lahore Darbar was asked to pay war indemnity of 15 million rupees. The British were privy to the information through Dina Nath, a Finance Minister of the Sikh government, that there was only 5 million rupees in the Lahore Treasury. So to make up for the loss of the war they demanded the Lahore State to cede certain territories and also recognise Gulab Singh as an independent Ruler. These details were formalised in Treaty of Lahore and Treat of Amritsar.

Raja Gulab Singh was a Statesman and a shrewd General. He manoeuvred the prevailing situation to get best for himself and for his family. He cleverly saved his ‘little empire’; he won recognition as an independent Ruler and he got additional territory, as explained above.

Here, it would be appropriate to mention Treaty of Lahore, which was negotiated between the Sikhs and the British and signed on 9 March 1846. Article 4 of the Treaty of Lahore reads:

‘The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification for the expenses of the war, in addition to the cession of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and half crore of Rupees, and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment, the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of Rupees, all his forts, territories, rights and interests in the hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah’.

And Article 12 of the Lahore Treaty reads:

In consideration of the services rendered by Rajah Golab Sing of Jummoo, to the Lahore State, towards procuring the restoration of the relations of amity between the Lahore and British Governments, the Maharajah hereby agrees to recognize the Independent sovereignty of Rajah Golab Sing in such territories and districts in the hills as may be made over to the said Rajah Golab Sing, by separate Agreement between himself and the British Government, with the dependencies thereof, which may have been in the Rajah's possession since the time of the late Maharajah Khurruck Sing, and the British Government, in consideration of the good conduct of Rajah Golab Sing, also agrees to recognize his independence in such territories, and to admit him to the privileges of a separate Treaty with the British Government’.

Many people wrongly think that Mahraja Gulab Singh acquired the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir from the British after paying 75 Lakh Rupees or Nanak Shahi.

It is clear that according to the Treaty of Amritsar vast areas of Hazara were also given to the Maharaja Gulab Singh. Chamba was also included in the Treaty. Hazara is now part of Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtoon Khawa; and Chamba is now part of Indian Himachal Pradesh.

Gulab Singh, as a General of the Sikh Empire fought many wars in the area now known as Khyber Pakhtoon Khawa. He knew very well what kind of rebellious people lived there. He was a prudent and far sighted ruler; he knew it would be extremely difficult to keep control over tribesmen who lived in Hazara from centre of his power base. So in 1847 he made a deal with the Lahore Darbar, and exchanged large areas of Hazara for a smaller State of Khari Khariaali, which was occupied by the Sikhs in 1810. Details of Khari Khariali state were discussed earlier, when it was explained how and why Bhimber State was partitioned. He knew people of this area were rather peaceful; and also the area was adjacent to other areas under his control in Mirpur and Bhimber.

Chamba was established as a state around 550 AD. It was ruled by various Rulers, but between 1809 and 1846 it was a tributary of Jammu. Although it was included in the Treaty of Amritsar, however, later on it was taken as a British Protected State. Tikka Lakshman Singh was the last Raja of Chamba, and in 1948 he acceded to India.

There is no need to discuss and explain position and status of

Poonch because it is agreed by all that it is part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, I feel there is still a lot of ambiguity about areas of Gilgit Baltistan and Ladakh, so I will briefly explain the satiation of these areas.

Raja Gulab Singh, as noted earlier was a man with vision; and he knew importance of Karakorum trade route, especially for shawl wool, and his General Zorawar Singh, who was appointed Governor Kishtwar, conquered Suru Valley and Kargil in 1835. Zorawar Singh continued with his military expeditions and conquered Astor and Baltistan in 1840.

Mahraja Gulab Singh then turned his attention to conquer Tibet. It was important for him to conquer Tibet in many ways; but after some initial successes his Commander General Zorawar was overpowered in a place where height was more than 12,000 feet and snow had already had started falling making it very difficult for his troops. Lhasa army also cut off his supply route which was hundreds of miles away in Ladakh. The battle began on 10 December 1841 and after two days of fight the Dogra army was defeated. General Zorawar was killed in the battle. 10

When the Dogra army was fighting very difficult battle hundreds of miles away from Jammu, Gulab Singh was fighting on behalf of the Sikh Empire in Peshawar; and it is here he was informed the Dogra defeat. Despite this some people claim he stabbed the Sikh Empire.

The Tibetans encouraged by their earlier victory tried to take over Ladakh, but they were defeated at the battle of Chushal. The subsequent Treaty of Chushul demarcated the boundary between Ladakh and Tibet. Treaties, of Amritsar and Chushal defined the borders of the Kingdom of Jammu in the east, south and west; however, the northern border was still undefined.

The Gilgit region, which includes Nagar, Hunza, Punial, Yasin, Ghizer, Chilas, Darel, Tangir, Harban and even Chitral; and they all had separate rulers, each conspiring against the other. On request of Karim Khan, brother of Raja Shah Skander of Gilgit who was murdered by Gur Rehman, Raja of Yasin and occupied Gilgit, the Sikhs sent a force under the command of Colonel Nathu Shah to capture Gilgit in 1842. Although after the invasion Karim Khan was installed as the Raja, but effective power was in hands of Col Nathu Khan.

When the Maharaja Gulab Khan acquired Kashmir, Nathu Khan expressed his loyalty to the Maharaja Gulab Singh and he was allowed to continue to administer the area. But, Gur Rehman who was early defeated by Nathu Khan conspired with Rulers of Hunza, Punial and Yasin and defeated Nathu Shah and Gulab Singh lost this region. However, he soon sent a force to punish Gur Rehman and captured the lost region. Rebellion of Gur Rehman continued and he recaptured Gilgit again in 1852, however, in 1860, Maharaja Ranbir Singh established his rule over the entire region. 11

Conclusion

Gulab Singh or Gulabo as he was called was born to an ordinary house in Jammu with no future. He was not born with a golden or even a silver spoon in his mouth. As a teenager he had to leave his home with no future in mind. Throughout his life, he struggled and fought against the odds, and overcame most difficult situations.

And when he died on 30 June 1857, he was known as the Maharaja Gulab Singh of Jammu and Kashmir. He left an empire for his dynasty. Many historians, especially Muslim historians have treated him unfairly. I can agree that he did not adhere to democratic values; and that he was not kind to his subjects; but don’t judge him with the moral values of 21st century.

Those who call him deceitful, greedy and flatterer, need to understand that a deceitful and flatterer are not brave people; whereas Gulab Singh established his bravery and brilliance in art of warfare in many battles. He was a wise leader and a brilliant General. We need to understand that all Generals and warriors have to be ruthless in order to win wars and establish fear that his subjects do not rebel against his rule. I agree he imposed many unjust and harsh taxes; but question is which ruler of that time didn’t impose taxes. What about rulers of today? Are we not facing harsh unfair treatment, and heavy and taxes and bills where we live today?

If it was not for Gulab Singh and the Treaty of Amritsar we could have been part of some districts of India or Pakistan, with no identity as a citizen of Jammu and Kashmir. We owe our Kashmiri identity and our sense of belonging to a nation to prowess of Maharaja Gulab Singh.

Indeed we are forcibly divided, but our struggle is for unification and independence of the State which Gulab Singh established; and those who call him a father of Kashmiri nation have every right to do so. I fail to understand why some people want to compare Maqbool Butt with Maharaja Gulab Singh.

Writer is a political analyst, TV anchor and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

About Me

Dr Shabir Choudhry was born in Nakker Shamali (near Panjeri) in District Bhimber, Azad Kashmir. He went to UK in 1966, and holds a dual nationality. He left secondary school in 1970 with no qualifications. In 1975 he started part time studies and passed Matriculation from Panjeri, passed ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels from UK, and resumed full time degree course and passed BA (Hons) in 1984. He was awarded Mphil and PGCE in 1990 and PhD in 2002. At present he is self - employed, provides private tuition, translation/ interpretation and consultancy.
Dr Shabir Choudhry has done extensive research on the issue of Kashmir and Indo Pakistan relations. He is founder member of JKLF and became its Secretary General in 1985, and got elected President of JKLF and Europe in 1999.
At present, he is:
• He is author of more than 25 books and booklets in English on various aspects of the Kashmiri struggle.
• Through out his adult life he has actively worked for Kashmir cause, and for peace and Rights Movement in Kashmir and South Asia.
• Also he regularly takes part in proceedings of UN Human Rights Council and has attended various International conferences on Kashmir.
Professor Rafiq Bhatti